We visited 12 senior welfare facilities following 2017 to conduct investigations on whether freedom of action is restrained, whether admission and discharge procedures are legitimate, and whether freedom of religion is ensured at sanatoriums for seniors. Based on the investigation results, we recommended that the Minister of Health and Welfare develop guidelines and manuals for the admission and discharge procedures and living conditions of healthcare and welfare institutions for seniors and identify the reality of and offer guidelines for CCTVs being operated at such institutions. We presented our opinion to the Speaker of the National Assembly that the bill for the partial amendment of the Welfare of Older Persons Act (bill no. 7898) should be modified to ensure proper legal grounds for any restraint of seniors' freedom of action. We also conducted visiting investigations at seven juvenile classification review centers. 3. Examples of Major Petitions A. Prosecution, Police, and Courts Discarding a Seized Article Prior to the Final Ruling Regarding a case in which the seizure of an article (mobile phone) was ordered in the first trial and the prosecution discarded the seized article prior to the final ruling, we recommended on September 18 that the chief prosecutor of the respective district prosecutors' office and the head of its branch office issue a written warning to the prosecutor and investigator. We concluded that the seized mobile phone did not fall under the category of articles that may cause danger and thus are difficult to be kept until the final ruling is handed down as prescribed in Article 130 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. We viewed that it is restrictively allowed to discard a seized article before the case is closed only when it is deemed likely to cause danger while being stored such as an explosive or toxic substance. Furthermore, as the petitioner filed an appeal of dissatisfaction regarding the seizure of his/ her mobile phone after the first trial and argued in the second trial that the discarding of his/her mobile phone seriously infringed on his/her right to defense, we concluded that the discarding of the petitioner's mobile phone prior to the final ruling was an arbitrary decision to exercise the authority of the prosecutor and investigator and thus a violation of the principle to observe due process of law. 88 Commission's Major Activities